AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
make sure you setup the BIOS Right..

If you dont setup APM and C1/C6e correctly, when you CPU hits the 125w Barrier, it will downclock your CPU.

my Chip idles 6^C and loads at 17^c (FX-8120 On H100 Water Cooling).

as soon as power levels for the CPY hit 124 watt, it cuts the 8-Core turbo mode and drops the Multiplier to 14.0 (2.8Ghz) from the default 15.5 (3.1Ghz).

1 Minute in prime 95 w/ 8 worker threads triggers this......
 
Microcenter sells the i5 2400 for $150, I just bought an i5-2500K for $190. Also, they give $50 discount for motherboard if you buy an i5-2500K, so it ends up being even a better deal. :)

The FX4100 is still just a dual core CPU... layer on an OLD discontinued PII-X4 and the problem with Bulldozer gets worse. Luckily for AMD, the PII X4 CPUs are quickly being bought up and there won't be any more AMD is losing to AMD anymore. Hell, even their "8 core" 8510 loses out to the X4 sometimes.

You are right, these are not the best chips for gaming, but they are quite good for typical users... even older X2 CPUs are fine for typical internet folks. They are faster than my aging Q6600, but a better video card and SSD can do wonders.

Compare AMD's best FX 8150 at $260 to the $190 i5-2500 or even a 2400 and all the FXs are left in the dust, by a wide margin.

I think the bottleneck could be in the chipset as ALL fastest AMD CPUs reach about the same limit (refer to older FX review).

PS: I give AMD points for having the most bad-ass locking CPU box art.
 
Right now I'm debating whether to go with an apu + discrete in hybrid crossfire, or just get the core i3 with the discrete. Which do you think would be better for gaming? They cost around the same.
It would be interesting if this benchmark was with an apu + entry level graphic card vs. i3 + entry level graphic card
 


WE HAVE A REVIEW ABOUT A SIMILAR TOPIC COMING UP VERY SOON!

Hold off, bro. 😉
 
News Flash!!! Cpu doesn't matter that much in GPU limited situations! Thanks Toms, way to state the obvious. PS- good job using a varied test bench components (cough) nvidia cards (cough).
 
[citation][nom]SpicPeso[/nom]News Flash!!! Cpu doesn't matter that much in GPU limited situations! Thanks Toms, way to state the obvious. [/citation]

I find it hard to believe you've missed the obvious point, which is to see where the GPU bottleneck occurs over different tiers of graphics card power.
So assuming you're not completely incompetent, I'm only left to conclude your self esteem is so low that it's bolstered by lame attempts at being clever on a news forum?

Good lord, you have my pity.

[citation][nom]SpicPeso[/nom]PS- good job using a varied test bench components (cough) nvidia cards (cough).[/citation]

PS- This isn't a graphics card review. Or are you suggesting that CPU scaling magically changes based on the graphics card vendor? 😉

 
[citation][nom]Raidur[/nom]These may look similar...Throw in a second GPU and the i3 is going to smash the FX.[/citation]

Based on what?

A hunch?

Or do you have a benchmark that you could point us to that substantiates your point?
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]AMD is in a tough position. AMD has to have a better architecture just to match Intel in performance, given Intel's superior manufacturing capabilities.I just don't know how AMD can compete.[/citation]

This shows that AMD does compete. Only marginally trailing the i3. And when overclocked, we see it match the i3. The i3 cannot overclock.

And AMD does this, whilst being cheaper for the consumer to buy. Meaning you pay less to get the same result.

The FX is the best value cpu between these 2. Although the G860 is even better value, but again can't be overclocked.
 
This article could not have come at a better time for me! I'm currently building my GF a $600 gaming rig (she mostly plays WoW, but has seen me playing games like portal 2 and skyrim and has expressed interest in those) - I had already chosen the i3-2100 but was wondering about a good GPU to pair it with. I had originally gone with the 6770 and I think I'll stick with that. Besides, down the road I can upgrade her to a 2500k and a better GPU if need be. 😀
 
Folks, at this point in time Intel is just BETTER, period.
I don't really get all this " it's the wrong benchmarks, wrong memory, O/S isn't optimized", etc.
The AMD fanboys just have to accept the current reality for the time being.
I sincerely hope that AMD can come back, but they're really going to have to get their game up
for that to happen.
 
"oday, Intel's LGA 1155 platform remains the best bet for a gaming rig. And not only for its budget-oriented performance, which is great, but also for its potential. Start with a cheap Core i3 and an inexpensive discrete GPU. Then, upgrade later to an Ivy Bridge-based chip and a faster graphics card without imposing any sort of bottleneck."

Not so! A budget intel motherboard wont give you those advantages at all . You have to spend at least $50 more than an entry level H61 mb for a model with a Z68 chip set .
Right out of the box the AMD is the better option because the motherboard will cost less and have more features . It also will be able to take another generation of processors .

AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OVERCLOCK which means that from day one the FX 4100 will perform better
 
[citation][nom]sunsmashers[/nom]Folks, at this point in time Intel is just BETTER, period.I don't really get all this " it's the wrong benchmarks, wrong memory, O/S isn't optimized", etc.The AMD fanboys just have to accept the current reality for the time being.I sincerely hope that AMD can come back, but they're really going to have to get their game upfor that to happen.[/citation]

The FX 8150 games as well as a 2500K at 1080p , and often beats the 2500K in applications

The FX 4100 is a match for the i3 2100 in these tests .

I think you'd have to be an intel fanboy to even suggest that intel are somehow better , when performance per dollar is usually lower


 
You have to remember, he used special memory, which might not be in a budget build anyways. This favors AMD, and doesn't help Intel at all, and Intel still topped.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Scaling the line graphs over 60 FPS only highlights theoretical differences. We're trying to keep it real and focus on where performance matters, when it gets choppy.[/citation]

I do understand that but what is the point when most of graph doesn't show up? Just use a broken scale on your y-axis and keep same increments and then there is the best of both worlds.
 
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]As always. Not quite apples to apples. The MB price difference is about $40.00 in favor of AMD.[/citation]

I see a $20 price difference on newegg between motherboards, which with a further $20 price difference on the CPUs, your point is vaild.

The AMD setup costs $40 less to get the almost the same results at stock speeds, and identical when the FX is overclocked.

Somehow this translates as intel is crushing AMD. Hmmm...
 
[citation][nom]TheApocalypse[/nom]I do understand that but what is the point when most of graph doesn't show up? Just use a broken scale on your y-axis and keep same increments and then there is the best of both worlds.[/citation]

I think the point is that the results are off the scale, and exceed what is being asked of them. i.e. to see where a CPU GPU combination bottlenecks performance.

Where the results are off the scale, there is no bottleneck. That's the informantion trying to be put across.

The raw data is available elsewhere on the usual comprehensive benchmarks with overall average and minimum frame rates.
 
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]The FX 8150 games as well as a 2500K at 1080p , and often beats the 2500K in applications The FX 4100 is a match for the i3 2100 in these tests .I think you'd have to be an intel fanboy to even suggest that intel are somehow better , when performance per dollar is usually lower[/citation]

FYI clock for clock the FX 4100 is going to match the FX 8150 within 5% in games.

Also, this test is GPU bottlenecked, like 99% of CPU gaming tests out there.

Find a test with 6970 crossfire or better and you'll see just how lacking AMD CPUs are these days compared to Intel's.
 
"Not only are we happy to address reader feedback, but we also take great pleasure in exploring areas of performance that might otherwise get ignored."

OK then! Here is a challenge that many, many of us want explored.

Will the new AMD FX CPUs work properly in the older AMD 890 series motherboards with the bios upgrades that Asus, Gigabyte, MSI assured us would work and made available in the summer of 2011?

I have a Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H motherboard and they claimed that this was indeed possible with their bios upgrade. But no tech site has yet to explore this question and there are probably thousands of us who have these motherboards and want to know the truth!

So, will Tom's dig out the answers for us or not?

Todd Sauve
 


Being the same company means squat.

Direct quote from the page you posted.

"The FX-6100 causes a major bottleneck, and we can’t help but wonder why this old (but demanding) game runs so poorly on AMD’s FX chip."

I hope you realize the AMD system was using much faster GPUs than the i5-2500k system and was still losing horribly.

Fanboyism sure renders the eyes/brain useless.
 
lol
edit: it was a reference to amd scorpius platform and amd's claims.
btw, the amd page says that the fx 8150's msrp is $245. chances are fx 8150 prices might never go lower than $245 (may be in microcenter but i haven't seen it). this makes the core i5 2500k overall better value for gaming. just saying.
edit 2: scratch microcenter. 8150 is going for $260 in microcenter while 2500k is going for $180.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom